Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Animal Body. So What?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Schimpanse_Zoo_Leipzig
Humans and chimpanzees are genetically similar. Some estimate the similarity at 98%. Others slightly less. A lot of ink has been spilt regarding this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here for just a few examples of the thousands of articles that have been written on the subject. What is all the fuss about?  It seems to me that much of the fuss is accounted for by the fact that whether they are in the ID or the creationist camp, many theists have an adverse visceral reaction to the data, and for that reason they work very hard to discredit or downplay it. I once felt this way. But as John Adams famously said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

The stubborn fact of the matter is that human bodies are very similar to chimpanzee bodies both morphologically and genetically. I have made peace with that fact, and to my theist friends who find the data troubling, I say calm down. Yes, you have an animal body that is more or less similar to the bodies of other animals. That your body is more similar to some animals – and in the case of the chimpanzee very similar indeed – is a fact of no great theological consequence, because you are not your body. Even if we were 99.999999999999% similar both genetically and morphologically to chimpanzees, it would not matter, because it is the difference that counts, and that difference is not a material difference. The difference is spiritual in nature, and because it is spiritual in nature material comparisons are not just misleading; they are completely irrelevant.

Paul wrote to his friends at Corinth: “I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” II Cor. 5:8. Who was going to be present with the Lord when Paul was absent from his body? Why, Paul of course. Paul understood that he, Paul, transcended his physical body, and one day he would be separated from that body. This dualism is nowhere more apparent than in Paul’s discussion of the never-ending war being waged within:

I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Romans 8:22-24.

I am not here arguing for any particular theory of how this dualism works out, such as Cartesian substance dualism or hylomorphism. My point is that scripture clearly teaches a distinction between body and spirit, and it is the spirit, not the body, that is of particular (indeed, eternal) consequence. Nor does the fact that I am conceding the similarity between the human body and the chimpanzee body mean I have conceded anything important to the materialists. I have an animal body. So what? Whoever said I didn’t? This does not necessarily imply common descent, much less Darwinian evolution. For purposes of the present discussion I am merely stating the obvious: I have an animal body, the Linnean taxonomic classification of which is:
Classification

As a theist (especially a Christian theist), I am not troubled by the fact that I have an animal body.  Yes, I am an animal, but I am not merely an animal. I have an eternal spirit, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Comments
The study which Wells points to (#17) is just one of the many studies that David Wilcox points to in his review of chimp/human differences.
Polavarapu, et. al., 2011 Characterization and potential functional significance of human-chimpanzee large INDEL variation. Mobile DNA 2:13
http://www.mobilednajournal.com/content/pdf/1759-8753-2-13.pdf In terms of total size variation, there is no percentage differences mentioned. Maybe one of our more biochemically oriented commenters might want to summarize the study.jerry
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
JW, many believe that is so. I don't disagree with you, but I am not as certain as you appear to be.Barry Arrington
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Dr. Moose. Wells agrees with you as set forth in one of the posts linked above. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/the_latest_on_chimp_and_human052291.htmlBarry Arrington
August 23, 2014
August
08
Aug
23
23
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Moose Dr @15, I think I agree with you. If the non-coding genes were included in the comparison, I suspect the number would be more like 50 or 60%. I even expect the chimp's genome to be more complex than that of humans in certain respects. This is because a lot more of the chimp's behavior is hard coded at birth. Humans have to learn almost everything.Mapou
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
I find this to be an interesting post. I agree that the 98% number is no challenge to ID. The opposite, a number significantly higher than the 98% value, would be a significant challenge to neo-Darwinism however. The methods used to produce the 98% number appear to me to be predicated on the neo-Darwinian interpretation. If I understand correctly, the number is pretty much based upon comparing variation within matching genes between the two species. The methods ignore dna differences in the non-coding, or "junk" regions. If these "junk" regions are not, well, junk, then the 98% number is in significant error. If the 98% number is in significant error the neo-Darwinian position is seriously challenged. I believe that the DNA is vastly more functional than the protein coding genes. I believe that the "junk" meme has produced bad science. I believe that every chip in the block of Junk increases the percent difference between man and chimp. I therefore believe that it is an excellent expenditure of ID resource to prove that the 98% number is wrong.Moose Dr
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
@President Barry:
As a theist (especially a Christian theist), I am not troubled by the fact that I have an animal body. Yes, I am an animal, but I am not merely an animal. I have an eternal spirit, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Non-human animals have eternal spirits, too.JWTruthInLove
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
The genetic similarities only mean something wrt common ancestry if we are the sums of our genomes, ie our genomes make us what we are (type of organism human or chimp for example). Also the morphological differences, and there are many, always seem to get ignored in these discussions. Being an upright biped isn't as easy as Hollywood makes it appear. And I doubt being an upright biped is a Lamarkian trait as Hollywood makes it appear. Are there any transitional fossils of opposable big-toes starting to join the other little piggies?Joe
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
And others don't care, which is sort of the point of the OP.Mung
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Some estimate the similarity at 98%. Others slightly less.
...and others, a lot less http://vimeo.com/95287522cantor
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Here is a comment I made a couple months ago about the differences between the chimp and human genomes (actually this is the third time). It is mainly about a review of chimp and human genomes in terms of control mechanisms.
The most interesting thing about the Meyer book was his emphasis in the latter part of the book on this non-genomic control of development. There may be a hunt for structure of the information for this as there was for DNA 60 years ago. And when they find it, the form may be so strange that it will be hard to interpret. When they found DNA they already had primitive digital codes to relate it to. Who knows what the structure will be that controls development and how it varies from species to species. Jon Garvey has on his site a discussion about what makes human unique. It primarily references a paper by a population geneticist David Wilcox. Here is the Wilcox paper http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/belmont2013/papers/ASA2013Wilcox.pdf One of the things it says is that the regulatory nature in the human genome is extremely more complex than the next species. Here is a quote:
What shall we say about the genes which make us human? We and chimps share 96% to 99% of our protein coding sequences. Why are we different? Not the 1.5% of our genome that codes for proteins but the 98.5% that controls their production. Literally, no other primate lineage has evolved as fast as our lineage has during the last 1.5 million years, and it’s all due to unique changes in our control genome. At least 80% probably more of our “non-coding” genome is also transcribed, starting from multiple start points, transcribed in both directions, with overlapping reading frames of many sizes and a whole spectrum of alterations, producing a whole zoo of ‘new’ types of RNA control elements – piRNA,siRNA, miRNA,sdRNA, xiRNA, moRNA, snoRNA, MYS-RNA, crasiRNA, TEL-sRNA, PARs, and lncRNA. Most of these unique RNA transcripts – and there are thousands, if not millions of them – are uniquely active in developing human neural tissue – uniquely active compared to their activity in chimpanzees, much less other primates or mammals. It is the new epigenetic world
We are only a short way there to understanding what is happening. And all this appeared by chance? Hardly. So look to other things besides the coding sequences. We may have the same building blocks but how are they assembled is the real issue.jerry
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
That's a pretty loose definition of what it means to call someone a liar Barry. By that definition most people here are called liars all the time, don't you think? To be sure, his argument was a complete non-sequitur. otoh, RDFish claims he has no problem with someone being a dualist as long as they recognize it can’t serve as the basis for a scientific theory. But he obviously DOES have a problem with it or he would not have mentioned it. See how easy that was? :) Anyone can put forth an RDFish-like argument!Mung
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
A chimp is a wonderfully designed living creature. I, for one, am happy to have many of my genes in common with chimps. I'm also happy to share many of my genes with plants, worms and bacteria. They, too, are wonderfully designed creatures. That being said, we humans have something that animals and robots do not have and that is a spirit. Without spirit, there is no value to anything, no beauty and no ugliness. Thinking out loud.Mapou
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Body hair should account for the 2% (or less) genetic delta between Robin Williams(RIP) his friend, Koko. Are there any other *meaningful* differences between apes and humans? 2% should do it.leodp
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
UD editor: "[snip] UD Editors: In this comment RDFish called Barry Arrington a liar. He is now in moderation." Obviously it is your right to edit and moderate comments as you see fit. But I have been called a liar (and other worse names) by UD commenters who have never been censured. I am a big boy and can live with the name calling from UD commenters. But I do find it hypocritical.Acartia_bogart
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Certainly the spiritual gap between man and ape is wide and metaphysically significant, but I think Darwinists still must contend with the physical differences of the brain and the significance which follows. We don't need to downplay the morphological similarities between different hominids, rather we need to show how immense the cognitive differences are. Technology serves as a good example. If we replace the standard 4-cylinder engine in a sedan with an engine designed for a NASCAR auto (and made some slight body adjustments), we'd have completely different vehicles despite the fact they are 98%+ similar. Even the engines themselves would be very similar in many regards (they'd both have carburetors and spark plugs and pistons). What this shows is that in the most complicated parts of a structure (be it the engine of a car or brain in a hominid), seemingly small changes can have large effects. And the most complicated parts are the most likely to need design to function properly. Thus we did evolve from apes, what needs to be explained is how the brain evolved to perform tasks so unlike what it was able to do before.GW
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
RDFish, what would you think if I said to you that it was Cartisian dualism which led to modern science?Mung
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
RDFish:
...as long as you recognize it can’t serve as the basis for a scientific theory
Because you say so? Or do you have an actual argument to make. A rational reason you can give people to think that you are right. One that's scientific would probably be best.Mung
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
[snip] UD Editors: In this comment RDFish called Barry Arrington a liar. He is now in moderation.RDFish
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Lucky AnimalsMung
August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply